In Cold Blood

To me, Eric Roberts performance as Perry in this overlong version of "In Cold Blood" is outstanding and memorable. That is not to say that overall the performances are anything to nitpick about, it's just that Roberts is the one to watch. On the downside, the 180 minutes it takes to tell this tale of murder in Kansas, appears stretched to the max. It seems to take forever for Dick Hickock (Anthony Edwards) and Perry Smith (Eric Roberts) to reach their destination of Holcomb Kansas. On the plus side there is far more character development than in the original Robert Blake, Scott Wilson film. If this was 120 minutes, it would have been terrific. - MERK

I watched this on T.V. when it first came out. I would've bet money that it was in the late 80's but it says here its 1996. I watched it with my sister and we only got to see the first part of the miniseries. I really was locked in by the whole attitude Anthony Edwards carried and the hate he showed.

The rest of the cast did nothing for me. Sam Neil is about as dry as an actor can get and Eric Roberts is an ugly no talent nobody who has never made a movie that he didn't cry in. I guess he knows that his sister is a big millionaire and he's nothing - that must suck, and for the record I hate her with passion as well.

The production of this movie was so plain and not even worthy of a lifetime movie of the week in my opinion. the direction has to be a character within its self and that was the most boring aspect of this movie for me.

I found this DVD at wal-mart for $3 last month and just had to see the rest of it. I wish I had left it setting there and saved my $3.

Anthony Edwards was mean and I liked him in it though and thats the reason to watch it. The fear he puts into that family. I just found out today that this is a remake of a 1967 Robert Blake movie of the same name. I'll try to get it and see if it's better.

After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!

Nick Houston

It boggles the mind. If they think another nickel can be squeezed out of a piece of material, they'll squeeze. The only reason I can think of that this story was retold was that the producers figured the audience was so stupid that they either never had seen the original or didn't know that there WAS an original. Well, maybe the assumption isn't that far off base. As a collective we seem to have dropped a good couple of IQ points somewhere along the way. Back in the 1960s Stanley Kaufman wrote an essay on "the film generation." In one of his classes he brought up Preminger's Joan of Arc, and his students did an impromptu comparison with Dreyer. His students don't do that anymore. They can't. They never heard of Dreyer. In the original "In Cold Blood," there is a lot of artsiness and pop psychology. It isn't a timeless classic, but it's a well-made movie. I don't know why anyone felt a remake was a good idea except, as I suggested, there might be another nickel left in it. The shot-by-shot remake of Psycho was a disgrace. It wasn't that long ago, by geological standards, that when a movie became a classic it was left alone. Can anyone imagine making "Gone With the Wind" now, without its being followed up by "Gone With the Wind, Part 2: Scarlett's Revenge"? What an insult this movie is. It's not badly done, but the motives behind its creation are scurrilous.

Meticulously detailed, way too much so, making this a very long and drawn out version of the famed novel. It's admirable they wanted to include as much of the book in the film, but sometimes being more selective in what you include is an asset in a movie. It does have respectable period detail, and it is well acted by everyone, good cinematography. It's main problem is it's extreme length and the fact it takes way too long to climax. . Still, there are rewarding moments along the way. It is surprisingly subdued and non violent. The 1967 Richard Brooks version is far better and much shorter. Check out a very young Ryan Reynolds who plays Bobby Rupp.